Decision-Making Experiments under Philosophical Analysis: Human Choice as a Challenge for Neuroscience

• Main Author: Carlos Eduardo Batista de Sousa (auth)
• Other Authors: Gabriel Jose Correa Mograbi (auth)
• Format: Electronic Book Chapter
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media SA 2015
• Series: Frontiers Research Topics
• Subjects: Neurosciences; Decision Making; neurophilosophy; free will and culture; compatibilism; risk and uncertainty; decision neuroscience; Intertemporal choice; Neuroethics; preference and moral judgment; adaptive decision
• Online Access: DOAB: download the publication; DOAB: description of the publication

This introduction just aims to be a fast foreword to the special topic now turned into an e-book. The Editorial "Decision-Making Experiments under a Philosophical Analysis: Human Choice as a Challenge for Neuroscience" alongside with my opinion article "Neurophilosophical considerations on decision making: Pushing-up the frontiers without disregarding their foundations" play the real role of considering in more details the articles and the whole purpose of this e-book. What I must highlight in this foreword is that our intention with such a project was to deepen into the very foundations of our current paradigms in decision neuroscience and to philosophically moot its foundations and repercussions. Normal Science (a term coined by Philosopher Thomas Kuhn) works under a research consensus among a scientific community: A shared paradigm, consolidated methods, widespread convictions. Pragmatically, winning formulas must be kept, although, not at any cost. What differentiates a gifted and revolutionary scientist from a more bureaucratic colleague is the capacity and willingness of constantly reevaluating, depurating and refining his/her own paradigm. That is best strategy to avoid that a paradigm itself would gradually come under challenge. In my view, some achievements, in this sense, were brought about in our project. The e-book will be inspiring and informative for both neuroscientists that are concerned with the very foundations of their works and for philosophers that are not blind to empirical evidence. Kant once said: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind". Paraphrasing Kant we could say: Philosophy without science is empty, science without philosophy is blind.